The Smith sighting revisited.

[pegasus]

Or, the McCanns lied about what she was wearing. ...

The simplest solution for the long sleeves is: the child the irish family saw has nothing to do with this case.
In hundreds of cases of abduction and hundreds of cases of occultation in Europe and in North America there is not a single example of open carrying in arms. Unless anyone can post an example?

[Angelo222]

There appears to be a significant disagreement over the possibility that Tannerman and Smithman were one and the same.  Aside from the length of the pyjama sleeves worn by the carried child one characteristic stands out for me and that is the length of the carriers hair.

From memory didn't Jane Tanner see him from the side at a distance of 20 odd metres and only caught a fleeting glimpse of him from behind as he passed in front of her but, and this is a big but, she did say he had longish shoulder length hair.  Smithman it seems had short hair which rules him out as being Smithman.

[Anna]

The simplest solution for the long sleeves is: the child the irish family saw has nothing to do with this case.
In hundreds of cases of abduction and hundreds of cases of occultation in Europe and in North America there is not a single example of open carrying in arms. Unless anyone can post an example?

Either the witness was mistaken or it was not Maddie, I agree.
It was dark and if I remember correctly, the witness did not see her hands, so how could she see the bottom of the sleeve to know it was long? Also pink skin and pink jammies ,,in the dark??

[Angelo222]

Either the witness was mistaken or it was not Maddie, I agree.
It was dark and if I remember correctly, the witness did not see her hands, so how could she see the bottom of the sleeve to know it was long? Also pink skin and pink jammies ,,in the dark??

Witnesses tend to repeat observations which stood out for them. A 12-year-old witness would notice things at eye level more than an adult would so Aoife's reference to long sleeves is very credible imo.

[Anna]

Witnesses tend to repeat observations which stood out for them. A 12-year-old witness would notice things at eye level more than an adult would so Aoife's reference to long sleeves is very credible imo.

If she saw the bottom(length) of the sleeve, how could she not see her hands, or have I read the statement wrongly?

[pegasus]

Speaking of the greater accuracy of younger witnesses' observation, here are three examples.
1. The detailed description given by young witness A.S (in the irish group) of the man and child she saw, including the important detail that the child's sleeves were long, and the possibilty of buttons on the man's trousers.
2. The highly detailed description given by young witness T.S. (not in the irish group) of a man she saw on two earlier days, including the fine detail in one of those sightings of a pencil on a chain hanging from the man's jacket.
3. The description by the even younger witness T (in the irish group), that the child he saw had bare feet, and that the man he saw was wearing a black jacket or coat with long sleeves.

[Mr Gray]

Either the witness was mistaken or it was not Maddie, I agree.
It was dark and if I remember correctly, the witness did not see her hands, so how could she see the bottom of the sleeve to know it was long? Also pink skin and pink jammies ,,in the dark??

Aoifee's statement was not recorded verbatim..

[Anna]

Speaking of the greater accuracy of younger witnesses' observation, here are three examples.
1. The detailed description given by young witness A.S (in the irish group) of the man and child she saw, including the important detail that the child's sleeves were long, and the possibilty of buttons on the man's trousers.
2. The highly detailed description given by young witness T.S. (not in the irish group) of a man she saw twice near the apartment before the 3rd, including the fine detail in one of those sightings of a pencil on a chain hanging from the man's jacket.
3. The description by the even younger witness T (in the irish group), that the child he saw had bare feet, and that the man he saw was wearing a black jacket or coat with long sleeves.

Yes peg....I had already tied them up and thought the pen on a string indicated a strong possibility that he was one of the charity collectors who gave a receipt.According to PJ he was identified.............details witheld

[Mr Moderator]

I think Smithman does exist but not at the time they stated. Come on who knows what the time is when your on holiday? I dont even think i used to take my watch. Time slips away from you very fast 30 minutes is gone in a nana second when your in a pub, ordering a drink etc....I think it was later they saw the man with the child about 10.20, that would make sense. It would give someone time to the other end to have had time to move the child. Do you know what time it is? I am writing this and havent got a clue, well i know its around 5.30, deliberatly not looking at the clock at the bottom right hand corner of my computer.

Not only that how many people have watches that GLOW in the dark? It was dark out too. They could have perceived a time they left the pub, stood around chatting gathering stuff and then start walking. Like i said time slips by.

Right i think its about 5.30.

Oh oops it 05.40 lol.

That is the truth i really thought it was 5.30, as I was up at 5.10, coffee was made, computer on, started this straight away. I was out by 10 minutes. I have a coffee machine by the bed so dont have to get up.

We all know the holding of the child was wrong. You hold a child like this when it has sadly died or is unconcious or just been rescued from a building etc. If you are taking a child out of an apartment illegally you would keep it close to your chest for warmth so it wouldnt wake up. BUT THEN IF IT WAS MADDY why wasnt she awake?

The arguement by people is it was a burglary gone wrong and they had distrubed Maddy so they had to take the child away. WHY?

The apartment was dark she would never had recognised them.
They could have easily have said they were there to check on her.
Sadly she was killed and they took her away because..............

If they took her away with the pretense of seeing mummy and daddy she would have been awake and alert.

This Smithman child was not, it was alseep or unconcious.

If the child was unconcious then it was not a burglary gone wrong, it could only be two things.

a. Abduction but planned and chloroform was used.
b. The child was dead and was being removed to bury.

So b. Why move the child if it was a burglary go wrong?

a.. If it was abduction which it could have been if planned right, why move the child through busy or lit strets, when all the person had to do, was go through the front door quietly walk through car park to the left and to a car parked on the old lagos road, or thereabouts away from houses.......

Non of it makes sense.

And if the child had been harmed by the McCanns why move her anywhere......Why raise the alarm? They could have been much cleverer then that.

Pretend all is well.

All go back to apartments.

During the dark take the child away to a point perhaps seen on running or sightseeing.....hide the child etc.

Open quietly the shutter window and open the window. Then raise the alarm much later say one of them woke up to go to toilet felt fresh air etc and found the child missing.

The more i think about this case the more it is confusing and makes no sense.

To cry abduction or missing so quickly just doesnt give time for the child to be hidden. UNLESS the child was already gone much much earlier.

The only other scenario for me is bizarre.

Maddy woke up saw parents gone out again got really mad and went off to hide to scare them. She wondered off either fell into something, was picked up, or was found dead in someones garden and they panicked and hid her.

Perhaps she fell into a trench being dug and no one noticed. Or even into an open grave and some soil fell over her and no one noticed, the scenarios are endless sadly.

Another point did they actually do VISUAL checks? Why leave the door open in the bedroom? I used to put my kids to bed and shut the bedroom door so they would not be disturbed. I would even then walk quietly upstairs and listen at their door. How many people actually GO into the room. Lets face it, you HOLD YOUR BREATH as you just want some peace and quiet lol. Active kids all day your pooped. They soon wake up when we go to sleep lol, well they do dont they. As soon as your head hits the pillow they are awake.

Now if they did have a listening service at the Ocean, they would have simply slid open the patio door a tad, and listened to see if they could hear the children crying. They wouldnt open the door go into the apartment for fear of waking children up. They used this system in Butlins, they would simply listen at the door, what sort of checking is that really?

So did anyone actually check properly? She could have followed them out within minutes of them going out to the Tapas.

IF I had planned an abduction, I would have waited for the family to leave, gone in quickly and out again. Less then minutes, chloroform, child, front door gone.

So back to the Smithman sighting...........the only other option was it was someone the McCann knew and had opportunity to take the child away, or because perhaps the timeline is wrong, it was just Mr Innocent who was taking child home from babysitters, and because say the time was so wrong ignored because the earlier sighting wasnt him?

My head goes round and round with this case lol. Sorry a lot of the above is just me brain storming, you can see how bad my brain is right now lol..... *&*%£

No non of it makes sense, and that is why i have always been sat on the fence.

Been catching up on posts from the last few days and this one caught my interest.

I agree colombosstogey, none of it seems to add up.

[Anna]

Aoifee's statement was not recorded verbatim..

So it appears.

[pegasus]

Aoifee's statement was not recorded verbatim..

Another irish group member's statement is not recorded at all in the files, verbatim or non-verbatim, except indirectly, but it enables me to conclude with confidence that the man seen by the irish group was wearing a long-sleeved black jacket or coat.

[Anna]

Been catching up on posts from the last few days and this one caught my interest.

I agree colombosstogey, none of it seems to add up.

Yes it was another really good post from columb

[Mr Moderator]

around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar.

around 21H50/22H00.

around 21H55

Not much of a contradiction really, is it.

You really don't like the Smiths sighting, do you DCI.

One of your better posts WS.  I agree, the three witnesses put the sighting of Smithman shortly after 10 pm regardless of when they arrived at Restaurante Dolphin.

[Anna]

Another irish group member's statement is not recorded at all in the files, verbatim or non-verbatim, except indirectly, but it enables me to conclude with confidence that the man seen by the irish group was wearing a long-sleeved black jacket or coat.

This is from 1 witness who doesnt seem to have made a statement.

[Angelo222]

Why do some posters think Smithman never existed when nine people saw him? Is his existence still a problem for some??